"Interesting you should mention Ron Paul. I think he is big everywhere but his own state. Honestly he has no presence in Texas. No Texas Republican I know would vote for him." -Pat

Well, he's been elected in Texas more than once so somebody down there is voting for him. I do agree with you though his own party does not want him and they certainly don't think he should be president. That's a rather large obstacle that he can't overcome. I know why Paul is popular, he appeals to people who want smaller government and less intrusive government which are good ideas but...and this is a big but...there are goals in these areas that are realistic and goals that are not. Also the fact you have to face is that there are a lot of crackpots and cranks that a guy like Paul appeals to and this hurts any chance he has to get elected. Paul wants to grab the gear shift and throw us into reverse and while his reasons for wanting to do this are fine and dandy the act of doing this is not a solution. So, he has no chance of getting elected...that's true and I understand why that means a lot of people don't even think we should bother discussing him because we would be wasting our time. To ignore Paul though is to ignore a lot of voices and I think doing that is a mistake that could cost us later.

"I was being facetious Reg, when was the last time a Christian preacher was popular with the MSM? Like I said if he gets much hotter he will be their bitch." -Pat

Well, I think he's hot for two reasons, he won the last Republican debate and he's leading the polls for Republicans in Iowa. See, all the talk is one thing but when people start voting the landscape of this election will start to come into focus. Yeah, the media has had their fun, they had Hillary (a triple whammy because she's a woman, a Clinton, and a straight from the Jerry Springer show soap opera that also happens to be the most controversial and polarizing candidate out there), Obama, Giuliani, and Thompson to play around with and create headlines but with Iowa and New Hampshire it gets real...people start casting votes. That means the guys on the bottom will start dropping out and the media will begin to focus on the people actually getting votes. This is very important, just ask Mitt Romney who has spent more money than anybody in Iowa to secure a win there. The fact that he may lose Iowa to Huckabee is a major blow to his campaign. It's a fact that the folks in New Hampshire that are voting in the primary will take notice of what goes on in Iowa and because this election has so many fence sitting voters that are lukewarm at best on all these guys, on both sides...Republicans and Democrats...the Iowa results may be all it takes to sway these voters into one camp or another. Then you get a Kerry situation where it just builds and sends a message that you beat all these guys in the first two states so you're a candidate that can win. This is what Romney has been banking on all along because Rudy has tanked there and basically gave up on Iowa. Iowa just does not like Rudy. Romney has been at the top of the Republican polls in New Hampshire too, so he's looking for that one-two punch that knocks Giuliani out. Huckabee is now the only real threat to that happening so he is the big story on the Republican side.

See, we'll sit here and talk about issues and what's wrong with the world but the guys running these campaigns are talking about how to win...period. They know these candidates will only have to deal with the issues if they get elected...until then the only value the issues have is to divide us into different camps. Again ask Romney...he's the robo-candidate...he'll say anything to anyone at any time to get elected. If there was a group that wanted a candidate that had sex with his grandmother Romney would tell them he had sex with his grandmother. The amazing thing about Mitt is he thinks this is all fine so he does it rather well.

"When it all said and done and the bullshit clears this is what the bottom line for me will be: 1. What is their stance on Radical Islamist and the threat to the U.S. 2. What are they going to do about border security and the rampant problem with illegal immigration. 3. What kind of man or woman would they put on the Supreme Court (aka Row vs. Wade stance) 4. How do they feel about socialized medicine 5. Do they want to raise taxes on the evil rich" -Pat

So based on this criteria which candidates seem to meet your standards.

Romney would nuke Iran.

Tancredo would be the border guy.

Probably Huckabee and Thompson on the Supreme Court thing.

Crap shoot on 4.

The whole Republican crew would be fine for you on 5, I'd think.

Now you'd have to consider Thompson and Tancredo are done. So your real choices may be Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and believe it or not McCain because he's the other guy that's surging in Republican polls. New Hampshire seems to like McCain so who knows.

Some good news on John Edwards in a recent poll of Republican voters he's the Democrat most of them would consider voting for...thing to keep in mind about that poll is it was sample of Republican voters not just anybody that they found that day.

Another good thing about Edwards is in recent polling voters said Edwards was the candidate that they felt was most likely to say what he believes rather than what people want to hear just to get elected. He scored highest on voter trust. This is all good but Edwards needs to win Iowa to get anywhere and right now polls seem to show what amounts to a three way tie there between Edwards, Obama, and Hillary...with Obama having a slight edge that is meaningless based on margin of error.